2010 (6) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 to 3/2005 in respect of security service provided to various service receivers on the ground that he had not received the Service Tax from respective parties. This contention of the assessee is not correct as the Service Tax is liable to be paid within a stipulated period after the close of the month/quarter under Section 68[1] of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and there is no specific exemption for postponement of such Tax beyond the stipulated time or till such time of realisation of Service Tax from service receivers. It appears that though the assessee had paid Service Tax to the extent of Rs. 21,442/- as per xerox copies of TR 6 challans on 17-10-2005 as confirmed from Syndicate Bank which is prior to issue of show cause notice dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of the Original authority did not suffer from any infirmity. As the assessee had paid the tax due along with interest before the issue of show cause notice, they were not liable to any penalty. They relied on the following case-laws : - (i)      C.C.E.,Delhiv. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. [2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB)] (ii)    Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.)] (iii)   CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipes Industries [2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar.)J (iv)   Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd. v. CC, Mangalore [2004 (177) E.L.T. 937 (Tri. -Bangalore)] On finding that there was no intention to evade tax, the original authority had correctly deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of M/s. Madhya Pradesh Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Security Service v. CCE,Indore[2010-TIOL-578-CESTAT-DEL = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 484 (Tri.-Del.)] in support of the Commissioner's order enhancing penalties under Sections 76 and 78. 5. I have carefully perused the records and considered the submissions made by the learned JDR. The findings as regards the offending transactions of the appellant contained in the order of the original authority do not indicate that the assessee had wilfully evaded the payment of service tax. On its liability being pointed out, the appellant paid service tax due of 21,422/- before the issue of show cause notice. Considering the facts of the case, the Assistant Commissioner found it appropriate to impose ....